CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Marmion Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff and suitable recruitment checks. They found that safeguarding, risk assessments, medicines, infection control and learning from incidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training, supervision and competency checks, and people were supported with food, health care and daily activities.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. People were supported to maintain relationships, express their views and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's interests and preferences. People were supported to access the community, but end-of-life wishes were not routinely discussed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open atmosphere, supportive management and systems to monitor quality. The home had an action plan for further improvements and involved people in discussions about it.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes not routinely discussed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 April 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines and management documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to remain independent.
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff guidance about people's needs. Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were found to be safe. The home had systems to learn from incidents and monitor quality.
Inspectors noted that end-of-life wishes were not routinely discussed, although nobody was nearing the end of their life during the inspection. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also Good.
Safe support
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood people's risks and supported them to use the community safely while developing their independence.
“People were supported to manage their own risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People were supported to keep family relationships and make their own choices.
“We saw staff treating people with dignity and respect and promoted independence.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and updated care plans when needs changed. People were supported with activities, holidays and moving towards greater independence where appropriate.
“Everything for that person is looked at holistically, every person has different care plan, people's preferences change and we [staff] update the care plans.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager used audits, feedback and an action plan to monitor the service and make improvements. Staff were supported to learn and improve.
“The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place which were monitored and regularly updated.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorThe provider did not routinely discuss people's end-of-life wishes. This had not affected anyone nearing the end of life at the inspection, but it is an area to ask about.
“Whist the provider did not routinely discuss end of life wishes with people, where people were nearing end of life, support had been given to them.” from the report
- 01How will you find out and record my relative's end-of-life wishes?
- 02How are my relative's care plans and risk assessments reviewed when their needs or preferences change?
- 03How will you support my relative to access the community and remain independent safely?
- 04How are medicines checked, reviewed and explained to residents?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern or make a complaint, and how will it be followed up?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC question areas and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor points still being followed up.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 1 September 2016. They spoke with nine people, two relatives, five care staff, managers and a health professional. They also observed care and checked five care records and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, were treated kindly and could make choices about their care.
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks had been completed. Staff had training and support, people received help with food and healthcare, and care plans were reviewed.
The home had a registered manager, regular meetings and quality checks. The report also noted that attendance at meetings was around 70% and one infection-control action, involving taps in the medication room, was still scheduled.
Safe medicines and risk planning
Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely and given according to people's needs. Risks were assessed, managed and reviewed.
“Medicines were administered to meet individual needs and were stored securely in order to reduce the risks associated with them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff developed caring relationships and adapted how they communicated. Inspectors saw that people's dignity and privacy were maintained.
“We saw that staff spent time sitting with people and talked to them about how they were feeling and tried to support them with any concerns.” from the report
People had choices
People were involved in daily decisions and in planning their care. Staff supported people to spend time where and how they wished.
“We observed that people were given a choice about every decision.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned with people and adjusted when their needs changed. Staff supported hobbies, friendships, independence and individual interests.
“This showed that the provider planned personalised care with people and that they monitored when their needs changed and altered care to address this.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said managers were approachable. The home held meetings, collected feedback and completed regular quality audits.
“Audits were completed regularly to drive quality improvement.” from the report
Some people did not attend meetings
minorAttendance at regular meetings was around 70%. The provider planned to speak separately with people who did not attend so their views were included.
“Whilst we have regular meetings with the people we support, we have noticed that the general attendance is around 70%.” from the report
One infection-control action was outstanding
minorAn external infection-control audit had one remaining action at the time of the inspection: installing taps in the medication room. This was scheduled.
“We have completed all of the actions from this one except to put some taps in the medication room and this is scheduled” from the report
- 01Have the taps in the medication room now been installed, and what other actions followed the infection-control audit?
- 02How do you gather the views of people who do not attend the regular meetings?
- 03How are medicines that are given as required monitored and reviewed?
- 04How will you support my relative if their mental health or capacity changes?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will we be involved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, using discussions, observations and records; 22 of the home's 24 places were occupied at the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Marmion Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.